• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2017 is the 2nd Warmest Year on Record

Surface Detail said:
That has got to be one of your most ridiculous posts to date.

Not only does the decay time of an excited CO2 molecule have nothing whatsoever to do with the rate at which the bulk air (or ground and ocean) warms, very few of the CO2 atoms actually lose their energy by spontaneous decay. Almost all of them lose the energy in inelastic collisions with neighbouring molecules (at atmospheric temperature and pressure).
Click to expand...
The Maximum excitation time for a CO2 molecule would be governed by it's spontaneous decay time,
I.E. the cycle cannot be longer than that.
The air (neighboring atoms and molecules) increase their energy from the decreases in the CO2 molecule.
The exchange of energy could be conduction(collision), or emission (mostly RF at these energy states).
This is the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming!
It sometimes interrupts the photons heading for space, and sometimes disperses that energy into atmospheric gasses.
I say sometimes, because CO2 cannot absorb the 15 um photons while already excited,
and the re emission energy can be across many wavelengths, some of which do not interact much with the atmosphere.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Given we have had a aprox 0.7c (0.8c ish) increase since then, why was there no four or five fold amplification over that period?
Click to expand...

Please read the past couple of pages of posts.

tl;dr: We have had amplification, but we are nowhere near equilibrium yet.
 
Surface Detail said:
Please read the past couple of pages of posts.

tl;dr: We have had amplification, but we are nowhere near equilibrium yet.
Click to expand...

So, since 1750 we have had warming due to increased CO2, with a direct effect from the CO2 of 0.7c but we will have to wait much longer for the full effects to happen which will be 4 or 5 times this 0.7c.

200 years seems a long time to reach 20% of equilibrium.

On balance, the amplification is just not going to happen. Nor will future temperature rises be amplified by the mysterious devil of human guilt.
 
longview said:
The Maximum excitation time for a CO2 molecule would be governed by it's spontaneous decay time,
I.E. the cycle cannot be longer than that.
The air (neighboring atoms and molecules) increase their energy from the decreases in the CO2 molecule.
The exchange of energy could be conduction(collision), or emission (mostly RF at these energy states).
This is the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming!
It sometimes interrupts the photons heading for space, and sometimes disperses that energy into atmospheric gasses.
I say sometimes, because CO2 cannot absorb the 15 um photons while already excited,
and the re emission energy can be across many wavelengths, some of which do not interact much with the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

You are barking up completely the wrong tree. Yes, that is (sort of) how CO2 causes warming, but the rate of warming of a system depends only on the heat capacity of that system and the net rate of energy transfer to the system.
 
Tim the plumber said:
So, since 1750 we have had warming due to increased CO2, with a direct effect from the CO2 of 0.7c but we will have to wait much longer for the full effects to happen which will be 4 or 5 times this 0.7c.

200 years seems a long time to reach 20% of equilibrium.

On balance, the amplification is just not going to happen. Nor will future temperature rises be amplified by the mysterious devil of human guilt.
Click to expand...

Amplification is happening, but we have not had the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1750.
 
Surface Detail said:
Amplification is happening, but we have not had the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1750.
Click to expand...

So how long do you think the amplification will take?

If we have had the initial warming and the amplification is due to the intitial warming then we had the amplification. Just to point out the bleeding obvious.
 
Surface Detail said:
You are barking up completely the wrong tree. Yes, that is (sort of) how CO2 causes warming, but the rate of warming of a system depends only on the heat capacity of that system and the net rate of energy transfer to the system.
Click to expand...
The bottom line with AGW is that ether CO2 as a greenhouse gas warms the atmosphere at .3 C per W·m–2 of energy imbalance,
or the mid to high end amplified feedbacks exists.
The empirical data is insufficient to allow both to be true.
Since the one based on science (as opposed to speculation) is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
I suspect it is more likely correct.
Without the mid to high end of the amplified feedbacks being true, the catastrophic portions of AGW
fall to the wayside.
The high feedback system was always a reach anyway, because such a system would be too
exists for long.
 
Tim the plumber said:

So how long do you think the amplification will take?

If we have had the initial warming and the amplification is due to the intitial warming then we had the amplification. Just to point out the bleeding obvious.
Click to expand...

You realize this is a thing that’s in the literature, right?

It’s not just discussed on blog and DP posts, and therefore it’s really not a matter of ‘what someone thinks’ but a matter of ‘what the science says’?

The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission - IOPscience
 
Threegoofs said:
You realize this is a thing that’s in the literature, right?

It’s not just discussed on blog and DP posts, and therefore it’s really not a matter of ‘what someone thinks’ but a matter of ‘what the science says’?

The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission - IOPscience
Click to expand...

You realize that there is considerable disagreement among people who study this as to
how long the lag or latency will be?
Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission - IOPscience
Using conjoined results of carbon-cycle and physical-climate model intercomparison projects (Taylor et al 2012, Joos et al 2013), we find the median time between an emission and maximum warming is 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years.
Click to expand...
Of course this goes back to the idea that the atmospheric amplifier cannot tell the source of the input warming.
It would amplify natural and unnatural the the same way.
 
Threegoofs said:
You realize this is a thing that’s in the literature, right?

It’s not just discussed on blog and DP posts, and therefore it’s really not a matter of ‘what someone thinks’ but a matter of ‘what the science says’?

The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission - IOPscience
Click to expand...

In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average.
Click to expand...

It may take a little longer to get the full effect, the last 20% say, but that's it.

So no 5 fold multiple.
 
Surface Detail said:
<Jack mode>Still warmer than July 2015. No cooling for 3 years!</Jack mode>
Click to expand...

At least these quacks have one shred of honesty:

“It is not possible to calculate the global average temperature anomaly with perfect accuracy because the underlying data contain measurement errors and because the measurements do not cover the whole globe. However, it is possible to quantify the accuracy with which we can measure the global temperature and that forms an important part of the creation of the HadCRUT4 data set. The accuracy with which we can measure the global average temperature of 2010 is around one tenth of a degree Celsius. The difference between the median estimates for 1998 and 2010 is around one hundredth of a degree, which is much less than the accuracy with which either value can be calculated. This means that we can’t know for certain – based on this information alone – which was warmer.
Click to expand...

Further I object to the hyperbolic language employed by these presumed "scientists" Re: "Temperature Anomaly"

Whats wrong with "temperature variability" i.e. "normality?"

Don't these quacks ever consult a dictionary:

Anomaly def: "something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected."

The only real "anomaly" that could possibly occur would be that no temperature "anomaly" exists.

Icebergs floating in the Dead Sea would be "anomalous"

Temperature statistics with error bars ten times the size of the calculated variation being "equal" would be similarly "anomalous"

That they would display random variation within with width of the error bars would be "normal," not "anomalous"


 
Last edited:
" Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one ofthe study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.

He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

“It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”


Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author of the paper, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

He said that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government research institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.

He said that too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...hange-can-be-avoided-say-scientists-k9p5hg5l0

and this cooling happened AFTER they figured out how wrong they were, so they are even WRONGER!
 
Threegoofs said:
Not sure why you care so much about stratospheric temps, but I’ll point out that a ‘cold one’ is now considered to be what an average year was 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

2018 is diving steeply and it's still early. 1993 here we come.
 
KLATTU said:
" Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one ofthe study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.

He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

“It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”


Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author of the paper, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

He said that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government research institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.

He said that too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...hange-can-be-avoided-say-scientists-k9p5hg5l0

and this cooling happened AFTER they figured out how wrong they were, so they are even WRONGER!
Click to expand...

And then 2016 and 2017 happened.

5749e9dd429dba39f55d601749623f8d.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
Not sure why you care so much about stratospheric temps, but I’ll point out that a ‘cold one’ is now considered to be what an average year was 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
Commenting on things without even opening the links I see!
The opening sentence says,
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2018 was +0.20 deg. C, down a little from the January value of +0.26 deg. C:
Click to expand...
Do I need to tell you that no part of the stratosphere in in the lower troposphere?
 
Jack Hays said:
Speaking of the troposphere . . .

Click to expand...

Are all those models predicting tropical mid tropospheric temperatures?

Because no one really cares about those- the more accurate models are global, and are meant to reflect surface temperatures.

But it was on a denier site and looks good, so you use it every chance you get!
 
Threegoofs said:
Are all those models predicting tropical mid tropospheric temperatures?

Because no one really cares about those- the more accurate models are global, and are meant to reflect surface temperatures.

But it was on a denier site and looks good, so you use it every chance you get!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but model comparison is the point of the project.

CMIP (Climate Model Intercomparison Project) Overview | NCAR ...

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/.../cmip-climate-model-intercomparison-project-over...


CMIP5 (formally: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) is the most current and extensive of the CMIPs. It is defined by experiment suites divided into three categories: (I) Decadal Hindcasts and Predictions simulations; (II) "long-term" simulations; and (III) "atmosphere-only" (prescribed SST) simulations for ...
 
Threegoofs said:
Are all those models predicting tropical mid tropospheric temperatures?

Because no one really cares about those- the more accurate models are global, and are meant to reflect surface temperatures.
Click to expand...

I would agree that you are no one but the rest of us care.

There is no available method of guessing average surface temperature due to uneven and standardless helter-skelter temporal and spatial sampling methods and distributions all exacerbated by variable UHIE which cannot be removed from these random measurements.

Satellite based radio-sonde soundings of the atmosphere gives the hope of achieving a systematic sampling

Does the "greenhouse effect" fail to operate in the mid troposphere?

Can you explain why it doesn't?



 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but model comparison is the point of the project.

CMIP (Climate Model Intercomparison Project) Overview | NCAR ...

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/.../cmip-climate-model-intercomparison-project-over...


CMIP5 (formally: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) is the most current and extensive of the CMIPs. It is defined by experiment suites divided into three categories: (I) Decadal Hindcasts and Predictions simulations; (II) "long-term" simulations; and (III) "atmosphere-only" (prescribed SST) simulations for ...
Click to expand...

So what you’re saying is that the models are projecting global surface temperature measurements, but it’s totally cool to compare it to tropospheric temperatures only in the tropics?

I guess that makes it look better when all the models project accelerated warming in the Arctic...and it’s been happening!
 
Threegoofs said:
So what you’re saying is that the models are projecting global surface temperature measurements, but it’s totally cool to compare it to tropospheric temperatures only in the tropics?

I guess that makes it look better when all the models project accelerated warming in the Arctic...and it’s been happening!
Click to expand...

No. The comparison is like to like.

Climate models versus climate reality

Posted on December 17, 2015 | 244 comments
by Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger Perhaps the most frank example of the growing disconnection between forecast and observed climate change was presented by University of Alabama’s John Christy to the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness Committee of … Continue reading →

244 Comments
Posted in climate models

. . . The temperature of the mid-troposphere can also be sensed from above, by orbiting satellites that measure the vibration of diatomic oxygen, which turns out to be a much more accurate thermometer than, say, a standard mercury-in-glass instrument. There are two global analyses of these data, one by Christy’s crew and another from Remote Sensing Systems, a California consultancy. The green squares are the average of these two datasets.
Note that the satellite and balloon-sensed temperatures are independent measurments.
The red line is the five-year running mean of the 102 computer models that can generate temperatures in this layer, found in the latest (2013) scientific assessment of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. . . .

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom